OCR Text |
Show Wednesday, June IS, 1974 PARK CITY1 Paged Itl Mary Lehmer Comments on Theriot Springs Dear Editor, I read the Park Record headline, Company and City Sign New Water Agreement and then read the glowing account of the agreement the City allegedly entered into with the Company. My, it was marvelous to read, but what was significant is what the article left unsaid (doubtless not revealed to mere reporters). Remember, friends, all is not cold that jitters. The Company is going to reconnect our Theriot Springs water source back into the Citys water system and provide a chlorinator for it, restore our pumps needed when this water is pumped into our system, give the City needed rights-of-wa- y and what rights the Company has to Theriot Springs water, build lines to connect Theriot water to the City System (when and if we pay them for Theriot water) and build us a 500,000 gallon reservoir, all at a cost to them of $450,000, and the Company will turn the entire project over to the City, AT NO COST TO THE CITY. The next paragraph says, In turn, the Company will be allowed a certain number of water connections, at no cost. When City Attorney Nemelka asked to meet with me a few weeks ago to present this latest agreement which Mr. King had divulged to him, I read it and said absolutely not its one of the more ridiculous agreements the Company is trying to slide into us. He said, But look at the new water supply were getting and the new reservoir. I reminded him of a few things. Bush & Gudgell charged us thousands of dollars for a report which said that Park City originally had adequate water supply and sewer treatment plant for itself and to develop every existing vacant lot in Park City. We also had all the school capacity and reservoir capacity for these needs. The Company in 1971 annexed 300 acres into the City and commenced building Three Kings condominiums, Thaynes Canyon subdivision, etc., and consumed all of the Citys surplus water, sewer treatment schools, 'facility, firefighting ability, etc. We also had a naive rate ordinance for water and sewer connection fees. an individual Although homeowner had to pay $200 each for those connections, a developer could pay only a couple thousand dollars, depending on the size of the connection pipe, and connect on as many units as he desired, up to the hundreds. When the surplus was gone and developers wanted new water and expanded sewer treatment facilities, there was nothing in the kitty because of the citys shortsightedness caused by its naivete in never having previously dealt with developers. The City fathers, being more experienced now, realized they had given the citys assets away without adequate compensation to replace the same, even to take care of its own vacant lots. The City (like all cities struggling to find new means of taxation to make ends meet) had no money to pay for the capital expenditures for which the. newcomers had engendered the need, such as more water, expanded sewer treatment plant, new fire station, fire engines and hose, more police cars and jeeps and broadcasting equipment, expensive snow removal and road maintenance equipment for new roads, new parks, facilities and equipment, land for the new buildings, etc., etc. The great tax base developers promise to bring in never comes in, nor has it come into Park City. With the millions the Company says it has invested in Park City in the last 4 years, the great tax base hasn't done anything to improve the City's operating budget, much 3-- less for pay capital im- provements. The City has never been in such bad financial shape, barring the Depression. If we hadnt received a $75,000 grant unex- revenue-sharin- g pectedly from the Great White Father, City Hall would be shut down today. Costs of operating the City have gone up, but revenues have not kept pace. Where all of the Citys administrative business used to be taken care of by a $300 a month City Recorder, $50 a month City Treasurer, part-tim- e Building In- Lawyer spectin', and a part-tim- e at $4,200 a year, since the advent of the Great Development we have a $600 a month City Recore secretaries, a der, two $13,000 a year City Manager, a $10,000 a year Building Inspector, and a part-tim- e Lawyer at almost full-tim- $10,000. The City fathers properly decided that since the newcomers created the need for the capital improvements and city services such as shown above, and since they stood to profit, they should pay their own freight. In May 1973 the City Council adopted a Resolution and amended Resolution listing 17 minimum demands developers, subdividers and annexers had to meet before proceeding. These were that each one had to bring to the City without cost all the water he would need for his development, donate to the City 6 percent of his land so the City would have the land needed for the new buildings required, pay his proportionate share of the cost of the new buildings, facilities and equipment thereof, provide parks commensurate with their developments, etc. When these demands were presented May 31, 1973, Mr. King of the Company naturally didn't like the end of the practically free ride the Company had enjoyed till then. In lieu and in full satisfaction of the Citys 17 demands he offered to help the City out by lending it any part of a million dollars, at interest, and a guarantee to keep the Companys e golf course open to the public (upon payment of Company180-acr- -established green fees). Fortunately, the City never signed that Agreement, although for a while Mr. King had four Councilmen stampeded into agreeing that this was a satisfactory trade. On the other hand, Mr. Eld Vetter representing 276 acres he had annexed into the city stood up at this meeting and said he realized that he couldnt sell one piece of his ground unless it had available the city facilities and amenities it need: that he was prepared now to sign an would agreement to every one of the to citys demands that applied him (a demand that the ski hill be kept open to the public in perpetuity applied only to the Company, i.e.); that he was prepared to sign and pay his entire proportionate share, as it was nothing out of his pocket he would pass it on to his buyers as a cost of doing business. When Mr. Vetter annexed to the city two years ago, he also gave to the city $20,000 cash against future connection fees, when and if he gets them, which money the city has been using interest free. He also bought and brought to the city all the water needed to get started on his first phase Prospector Square. He has for one year now been clamoring for the city to prepare the agreement for his signature so he can get started while he waits for water and sewer, but we are much too busy to take care of Mr. Vetter; the big wheels at City Hall have been much too busy being occupied with the various propositions Mr. King keeps presenting as a means of sidestepping the reasonable and straightforward list of demands, which Mr. Vetter for more than one year now has been trying to sign. The latest "water agreement proposition is another one of the Companys efforts to get its foot in the door and bit by bit sidestep all of the city's demands it can by piecemeal negotiations, as I see it. When Mr. Nemelka commented about the new extra water supply the City will get, which we can call upon (includes our own Theriot Springs water) only in dire emergency, as it is intended as part of the regular supply needed for Company developments, I reminded him that when we lost most of the City's original water supply last winter through we the Judge mine cave-in- , decided to reconnect our Theriot Springs water source to our system to alleviate the shortage. However, a couple of years ago, the Company asked to disconnect this water from the system in order to put in the Three Kings road. The Council graciously agreed, on condition that the Company reconnect the pipe it was severing and relocate the pumps, to maintain the tie-iThe Company put its road in and forgot everything else. No one did anything about it, as we had plenty of water then and didn't need our Theriot source. It is debatable whether the pumps were operable at that time or not, but the transformers that worked them were not protected for the City and apparently were lost. So when we thought about connecting this source up last winter, we were out of luck. Further, the State Board of Health advised that even if we connected it, we couldnt use it in its native state as we used to do, because the Company had built habitations within 1500 feet of the source and polluted it. So, I asked Mr. Nemelka, why should we agree to give the Company free connections for 1,148 units, supposedly the right number of connections to reim 10-in- n. burse them for their $450,000 expenditure. when part of that expenditure for pipe line and recon-nectio- n, transformers, chlorinator and I dont know exactly what else, was an expenditure they were already obligated to make or had brought about through their pollution. Mr. Nemelka said he was unaware of these facts, as this agreement with the Council had taken place before his time (true), but it was certainly a valid point whereby he could negotiate downward with the Company the 1,148 free connections they wanted for their total expenditure. As for a new water source for the City", I reminded Mr. Nemelka that when we lost our water last winter, we had since loan negotiated an interest-fre- e with the State Water Board of $150,000 needed to drill a new shaft in the Judge assured of getting back not only all of the City's original total water source but so much more additional water that 'Jan Wilking prevailed upon the Council to lift the building .moratorium because we would have enough extra water for at least 400 brand new units. Now, if we are going to have so much water from the Judge that we can consider giving out 400 new water connections without even resorting to our Theriot water, then we obviously aren't concerned with reserving any water for any emergency, or else why think about new connections. If this is so, then, I asked Mr. Nemelka, what is so great about an obviously unneeded emergency backup system the Companys proposal promises, as that is the only time the users of the present city System may call upon this source. Also, as a condition of obtaining the loan from the State Water Board to drill the new shaft to assure our existing city of ample water for every use and emergency (and apparently then some), the City had to commit that everybodys water bill in Park City is going up $2 per month for revenue to repay this loan. I suggested to Mr. Nemelka that since we were already going to pay to assure ourselves of ample water, why should we pay (the Company) twice for the same thing. I asked Mr. Nemelka how the U.148) units were to be interpreted. Well, that was very loose and open. The Company represents to us (and we are supposed to accept their statement) that it takes 2 'a hotel rooms to use as much water as a residence. If, under the loose terms of the proposed Agreement which Mr. Nemelka brought me from the Company, the Company chooses to use up 900 of its "free connections for units, it would recoup its total $150,000 expenditure from those 900 units alone and would still have 248 more free unit connections coming, worth another $120,000 lost revenue to the City whether taken out by the Company for hotel rooms at 2 rooms per unit or houses, apartments, or condos, for a $450,000 expenditure on their part. If they choose units for their "free connections. which are $550 each un-d- er our present schedule, they would gain more than $570,000. What kind of an agreement is this? I am not adverse to an agreement where the Company would receive water connections commensurate with their actual expenditures for new reservoir, etc. which they need for their development, as the City in any event plans to pay for such needed improvements out of the connection fees the new development would generate, but I do not intend to endorse any agreement where the Company will be unjustly enriched, as above demonstrated, or pay for expenditures they are making to discharge obligations they were already required to perform. The only Council action scheduled for Thursday, May 31st, was the public opening of the bids for the Main Street Improvement District construction. My presence there wasnt going to change the amounts of the bids one way or another, so I was home in Deer Valley reading a paperback until I was going over to Coalville on business later that night. Mayor Price, Mr. Nemelka and Councilmen Uriarte and Wilking were present for the bid opening. Then, strangely, Bruce Decker was dispatched down the street to wrangle up Clem Hansen to make a quorum. (No one was dispatched to fetch me. Mr. Martinez was out of town.) The Company's water proposition was presented and ostensibly adopted by two Councilmen (Mr. Wilking being required to abstain from voting because of his employer's interests). No mention was made of negotiation downward from the 1,148 units free connections originally sought by the Company. When Mr. Hansen asked for clarification of how units would be defined and applied, he got a vague answer of "2 or 2 hotel rooms equal a unit some such. I learned of these singular proceedings the next day. The courproceedings are illegal, of a at regular se, as not conducted Council meeting or Special meeting called pursuant to City ordinances. It struck me as very instrange that this matter, of volving a city revenue matter more than a half million dollars, was decided in this matter by two Councilmen, when all Councilmen (acting under a forfeiture of $100 pay for absence) are Counalways present at regular cil meetings. But now, friends, comes the final indignity and unbelievable aspect of thses questionable ac- tions. After last Thursdays meeting, regular Council someone said something about the Holiday Ranchettes could now go ahead, as they didnt have to wait for the determination of what the impact fees would be. is (Impact fees, or service fees; what the city intends to compute and assess for each new boiWffS needed proportionate share of etc., city buildings, facilities, outlined, in part, above.) |